(Heb. mashiah), in all the thirty-nine instances of its occurring in the Old Testament, is rendered by the LXX. "Christos." It means anointed. Thus priests (Exodus 28:41 ; 40:15 ; Numbers 3:3 ), prophets (1 Kings 19:16 ), and kings (1 Samuel 9:16 ; 16:3 ; 2 Samuel 12:7 ) were anointed with oil, and so consecrated to their respective offices. The great Messiah is anointed "above his fellows" (Psalm 45:7 ); i.e., he embraces in himself all the three offices. The Greek form "Messias" is only twice used in the New Testament, in John 1:41,4:25 (RSV, "Messiah"), and in the Old Testament the word Messiah, as the rendering of the Hebrew, occurs only twice ( Daniel 9:25,26 ; RSV, "the anointed one"). The first great promise (Genesis 3:15 ) contains in it the germ of all the prophecies recorded in the Old Testament regarding the coming of the Messiah and the great work he was to accomplish on earth. The prophecies became more definite and fuller as the ages rolled on; the light shone more and more unto the perfect day. Different periods of prophetic revelation have been pointed out, (1) the patriarchal; (2) the Mosaic; (3) the period of David; (4) the period of prophetism, i.e., of those prophets whose works form a part of the Old Testament canon. The expectations of the Jews were thus kept alive from generation to generation, till the "fulness of the times," when Messiah came, "made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law." In him all these ancient prophecies have their fulfilment. Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the great Deliverer who was to come. (Compare Matthew 26:54 ; Mark 9:12 ; Luke 18:31 ; 22:37 ; John 5:39 ; Acts 2 ; 16:31 ; 26:22,23 .)

See Jesus Christ, Name and Titles of ; Messiah

("anointed" (Hebrew) equates to "Christ (Greek)). (See CHRIST.) In KJV only in Daniel 9:25-26 of Old Testament; John 1:41; John 4:25, of New Testament Having the immeasurable unction of the Holy Spirit as Prophet, Priest, and King at one and the same time. All others have but a measure, and that derived from Him (John 1:16; John 3:84). See the type (Exodus 28:41; Exodus 30:23-24; 1 Samuel 24:6); and the prophecies (Genesis 3:15; Genesis 9:26; Genesis 12:2-3; Genesis 12:22; compare John 8:56; Genesis 49:10; Numbers 24:17-19; Deuteronomy 18:18 with Acts 3:22-24; John 5:45-47; Psalms 2:2; Psalms 2:6 margin; Psalms 2:7-12; Psalms 2:16; Psalms 2:22; Psalms 2:40; Psalms 45:7 compare 1 Kings 1:39-40; Psalm 69; 72; 110). His birthplace (Micah 5:2), His lineage (Isaiah 11:1), His time of coming (Daniel 9:25-26), while the second temple stood (Haggai 2:9), and His forerunner (Isaiah 40:3-5; Malachi 3:1) are foretold. From Psalm 2; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Zechariah 9:9, the Jews expected a triumphant king, but overlooked the prophecies of His sufferings first (Isaiah 53; Luke 24:21-26-27). A few looked for a more spiritual deliverance (Luke 2:30; Luke 2:38), and among them the despised Samaritans (John 4:25; John 4:42) and the thief on the cross (Luke 23:42). The rabbis got over the Messianic prophecies which prove Jesus to be Messiah by imagining a Messiah ben Joseph who should suffer, distinct from Messiah ben David who should reign; but the prophecies of the suffering and glory are so blended as to exclude the idea of any but one and the same Messiah (compare Isaiah 52:7; Isaiah 52:13-14; Isaiah 52:15; Isaiah 52:53).

A. Nouns. Mâshı̂yach (מָשִׁיחַ, Strong's #4899), “anointed one; Messiah.” Of the 39 occurrences of mâshı̂yach, none occurs in the wisdom literature. They are scattered throughout the rest of biblical literary types and periods. First, mâshı̂yach refers to one who is anointed with oil, symbolizing the reception of the Holy Spirit, enabling him to do an assigned task. Kings (1 Sam. 24:6), high priests, and some prophets (1 Kings 19:16) were so anointed: “If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people …” (Lev. 4:3—the first biblical appearance). In the case of Cyrus, he was anointed with God’s Spirit only and commissioned an “anointed deliverer” of Israel (Isa. 45:1). The patriarchs, too, are called “anointed ones”: “Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm” (Ps. 105:15). Second, the word is sometimes transliterated “Messiah.” After the promise to David (2 Sam. 7:13) mâshı̂yach refers immediately to the Davidic dynasty, but ultimately it points to the “Mes-siah,” Jesus the Christ: “The kings of the earth ^[1], and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his Anointed …” (Ps. 2:2). In Dan. 9:25 the word is transliterated: “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince.…” The New Testament also attests the word in this latter meaning (John 1:41). Most frequently in the New Testament the word is translated (“Christ”) rather than transliterated (“Messiah”). See also ANOINT. Mishchâh (מָשְׁחָה, Strong's #4888), “anointment.” This noun occurs 21 times and only in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. It always follows the Hebrew word for oil. The first occurrence is Exod. 25:6: “Oil for the light, spices for anointing oil, and for sweet incense.” B. Verb. Mâshach (מָשַׁח, Strong's #4886), “to smear with oil or paint, anoint.” This verb, which appears 69 times in biblical Hebrew, has cognates in Ugaritic, Akkadian, Aramaic, and Arabic. The objects of this verb are people, sacrificial victims, and objects of worship. Aaron and his sons are the objects of this verb in Exod. 30:30: “And thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office.”

(meh ssi' uh) Transliteration of Hebrew word meaning, “anointed one” that was translated into Greek as Christos . See Christ, Christology . Since apostolic times the name Christ has become the proper name of Jesus, the Person whom Christians recognize as the God-given Redeemer of Israel and the church's Lord. “Christ” or Messiah is therefore a name admirably suited to express both the church's link with Israel through the Old Testament and the faith that sees in Jesus Christ the worldwide scope of the salvation in Him. The Old Testament and Early Jewish Background “Anointed” carries several senses in the Old Testament. All have to do with installing a person in an office in a way that the person will be regarded as accredited by Yahweh, Israel's God. Even a pagan king such as Cyrus was qualified as the Lord's anointed (Isaiah 45:1 ) to execute a divinely appointed task. The usual application of the term anointed was to God's representatives within the covenant people. Prophets such as Elisha were set apart in this way (1 Kings 19:16 ). Israel probably saw a close link between the anointed persons and God's spirit though the link is specifically mentioned only occasionally (2 Kings 2:9 ). Israelite kings were particularly hailed as Yahweh's anointed compare ( Judges 9:8 ), beginning with Saul (1 Samuel 9-10 NIV) and especially referring to David (Luke 24:45-4639 1 Samuel 16:13 ; see 2 Samuel 2:4 ; 2 Samuel 5:3 ) and Solomon (1 Kings 1:39 ). The royal family of David as being the line of Israelite kings are mentioned by the title of the “anointed ones” (2 Samuel 22:51 ; compare 2 Kings 11:12 ; 2 Kings 23:30 ; Psalm 2:2 ; Psalm 20:6 ; Psalm 28:8 ; Psalm 84:9 ). The king in Israel thus became a sacred person to whom loyalty and respect were to be accorded (1Samuel 24:6,1 Samuel 24:10 ; 1Samuel 26:9,1Samuel 26:11,1Samuel 26:16,1 Samuel 26:23 ; 2Samuel 1:14,2 Samuel 1:16 ). The oracle spoken by Nathan (2 Samuel 7:12-16 ) is important since it centers the hope of Israel on the dynasty of David for succeeding generations. The king, especially in the Psalms, became idealized as a divine son (Psalm 2:2 ,Psalms 2:2,2:7 ; compare 2 Samuel 7:14 ) and enjoyed God's protecting favor (Acts 2:29-3601 ; Psalm 20:6 ; Psalm 28:8 ). His dynasty would not fail (Psalm 132:17 ), and the people were encouraged to pray to God on his behalf (Psalm 72:11-15 ; Psalm 84:9 ). The fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. led to great confusion especially when Yahweh's anointed was taken into Exile as a prisoner (Hebrews 9:14-15 ) and his authority as king rejected by the nations (Psalm 89:38 ,Psalms 89:38,89:51 ). This humiliation of the Davidic dynasty posed a set of problems to Israel's faith, even when the people were permitted to return to the land. No revival came for the Davidic kingship; yet that restoration became the pious longing of the Jews both in Babylonian Exile (Jeremiah 33:14-18 ) and in the later centuries. One of the clearest expressions of the continuing hope was in the Psalms of Solomon (17–18 (70-40 B.C.), a Jewish writing of the Messiah as the son of David. There Messiah was a warrior-prince who would expel the hated Romans from Israel and bring in a kingdom in which the Jews would be promoted to world dominion. After the Exile the Israelite priesthood came into prominence. In the absence of a king, the high priest took on a central role in the community. The rite of anointing was the outward sign of his authority to function as God's representative. This authority was traced back to Aaron and his sons (Exodus 29:7-9 ; Exodus 30:22-33 ; compare Psalm 133:2 ). The high priest was the anointed-priest (Leviticus 4:3 ,Leviticus 4:3,4:5 ,Leviticus 4:5,4:16 ) and even, in one place, a “messiah” (Zechariah 4:14 ; compare Zechariah 6:13 ; Daniel 9:25 ). In the exilic and postexilic ages, the expectation of a coming Messiah came into sharper focus, commencing with Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's vision of a Messiah who would combine the traits of royalty and priestly dignity (Jeremiah 33:14-18 ; Ezekiel 46:1-8 ; see, too, Zechariah 4:1-14 ; Zechariah 6:13 ). The people in the Dead Sea scrolls were evidently able to combine a dual hope of two Messiahs, one priestly and the second a royal figure. The alternation between a kingly Messiah and a priestly figure is characteristic of the two centuries of early Judaism prior to the coming of Jesus. Messiahship in Jesus' Ministry A question posed in John 4:29 ; compare John 7:40-43 is: “Is not this the Christ (Messiah).” It is evident that the issue of the Messiah's identity and role was one much debated among the Jews in the first century. In the Synoptic Gospels the way Jesus acted and spoke led naturally to the dialogue at Caesarea Philippi ( Mark 8:29 ). Jesus asked His disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” a question to which Peter gave the reply, “Thou art the Christ (Messiah)” (Hebrews 2:2-45 ). Mark made clear that Jesus took an attitude of distinct reserve and caution to this title since it carried overtones of political power, especially in one strand of Jewish hope represented by the Psalms of Solomon. Jesus, therefore, accepted Peter's confession with great reluctance since with it went the disciple's objection that the Messiah cannot suffer (see Mark 9:32 ). For Peter, Messiah was a title of a glorious personage both nationalistic and victorious in battle. Jesus, on the other hand, saw His destiny in terms of a suffering Son of man and Servant of God (Mark 8:31-38 ; Mark 9:31 ; Mark 10:33-34 ). Hence He did not permit the demons to greet Him as Messiah (Luke 4:41 ) and downplayed all claims to privilege and overt majesty linked with the Jewish title. The course of Jesus' ministry is one in which He sought to wean the disciples away from the traditional notion of a warrior Messiah. Instead, Jesus tried to instill in their minds the prospect that the road to His future glory was bound to run by way of the cross, with its experience of rejection, suffering, and humiliation. At the trial before His Jewish judges (Matthew 26:63-66 ) He once more reinterpreted the title Messiah (“Christ,” KJV) and gave it a content in terms of the Son of man figure, based on Daniel 7:13-14 . This confession secured His condemnation, and He went to the cross as a crucified Messiah because the Jewish leaders failed to perceive the nature of messiahship as Jesus understood it. Pilate sentenced Him as a messianic pretender who claimed (according to the false charges brought against Him) to be a rival to Caesar (Mark 15:9 ; Luke 23:2 ; John 19:14-15 ). It was only after the resurrection that the disciples were in a position to see how Jesus was truly a king Messiah and how Jesus then opened their minds to what true Messiahship meant (see 1618419556_8 ). The national title Messiah then took on a broader connotation, involving a kingly role which was to embrace all peoples ( Luke 24:46-47 ). Messiah as a Title in the Early Church From the resurrection onward the first preachers announced that Jesus was the Messiah by divine appointment (Acts 2:36 ; Romans 1:3-4 ). Part of the reason for this forthright declaration is to be traced to apologetic reasons. In the mission to Israel the church had to show how Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies and came into the world as the “Son of David,” a title closely linked with the Messiah as a royal person. Matthew's Gospel is especially concerned to establish the identity (Matthew 1:1 ), but it is equally a theme common to Luke (Luke 1:32 ,Luke 1:32,1:69 ; Luke 2:4 ,Luke 2:4,2:11 ; 1618419556_5 ; Acts 13:22-23 ). Paul also saw in Jesus the fulfillment of the messianic hopes of the old covenant (1 Corinthians 5:7-8 ). Peter, too, sought to show how the sufferings of the Messiah were foretold (1Peter 1:11,1 Peter 1:20 ; 1 Peter 2:21 ; 1 Peter 3:18 ; 1Peter 4:1,1 Peter 4:13 ; 1 Peter 5:1 ). Luke stressed the link between Jesus as the One anointed by the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:16-22 ) in a way that looks back to Isaiah 61:1 , and he recorded Peter's statement (in Acts 10:38 NIV) that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power” as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. The letter to the Hebrews is rich in this theme. See Hebrews 1:9 ; 1618419556_50 ; Lamentations 4:20 . The final stage of development in regard to the title Messiah came in the way that Paul used the word more as a personal name than as an official designation (seen in Romans 9:5 , “Christ”). The reason for this shift lies in the intensely personal nature of Paul's faith which centered in Jesus Christ as the divine Lord (see Philippians 1:21 ; Colossians 3:4 ). Also, Paul taught his converts who were mainly converted to Christ from paganism that Jesus was the universal Lord whose mission was wider than any Jewish hope could embrace. In Pauline thought, “Christ” is a richer term than “Messiah” could ever be, and one pointer in this direction is the fact that the early followers of the Messiah called themselves not converted Jews but “Christians,” Christ's people (Acts 11:26 ; 1 Peter 4:16 ) as a sign of their universal faith in a sovereign Lord. See Christ; Jesus. Ralph P. Martin

The word ‘messiah’ is a Hebrew word meaning ‘the anointed one’. Israelites of Old Testament times anointed kings, priests, and sometimes prophets to their positions by the ceremony of anointing. In this ceremony a special anointing oil was poured over the head of the person as a sign that he now had the right, and the responsibility, to perform the duties that his position required (Exodus 28:41; 1 Kings 1:39; Matthew 21:1-11; see ANOINTING). In the Greek speaking world of New Testament times the word ‘christ’, also meaning anointed, was used as a Greek translation of the Hebrew ‘messiah’. Old Testament expectations The most common Old Testament usage of the title ‘anointed’ was in relation to the Israelite king, who was frequently called ‘the Lord’s anointed’ (1 Samuel 24:10; Psalms 18:50; Psalms 20:6). In the early days of Israel’s existence, when it was little more than a large family, God signified that the leadership of the future Israelite nation would belong to the tribe of Judah. From this tribe would come a great leader who would rule the nations in a reign of peace, prosperity and enjoyment (Genesis 49:9-12). Centuries later, God developed this plan by promising King David (who belonged to the tribe of Judah) a dynasty that would last for ever (2 Samuel 7:16). The people of Israel therefore lived in the expectation of a time when all enemies would be destroyed and the ideal king would reign in a worldwide kingdom of peace and righteousness. This coming saviour-king they called the Messiah. In promising David a dynasty, God promised that he would treat David’s son and successor as if he were his own son (2 Samuel 7:14). From that time on, Israelites regarded every king in the royal line of David as, in a sense, God’s son; for he was the one through whom God exercised his rule. The Messiah, David’s greatest son, was in a special sense God’s son (Psalms 2:6-7; Mark 10:47; Mark 12:35; Mark 14:61). Because of their expectation of a golden age, the Israelite people saw victories over enemies as foreshadowings of the victory of the Messiah and the establishment of his kingdom. They praised their kings in language that was too extravagant to be literally true of those kings. The language expressed the ideals that Israel looked for in its kings, but it could apply fully only to the perfect king, the Messiah (e.g. Psalms 2; Psalms 45; Psalms 72; Psalms 110). Messianic interpretations The idealism of the prophets was not fulfilled in any of the Davidic kings of the Old Testament, but this did not cause the people of Israel to lose hope. They constantly looked for the one who would be the great ‘David’ of the future, the great descendant of David the son of Jesse (Psalms 89:3-4; Isaiah 9:2-7; Isaiah 11:1-10; Jeremiah 23:5; Ezekiel 34:23-24; Micah 5:2). This king, this Messiah, was Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:1; Matthew 9:27; Matthew 12:22-23; Matthew 21:9; Luke 1:32-33; Luke 1:69-71; Revelation 5:5). One of David’s best known psalms, Psalms 110, was interpreted by Jews of Jesus’ time as applying to the Messiah, though they consistently refused to acknowledge the messiahship of Jesus. Jesus agreed that they were correct in applying this psalm to the Messiah, but he went a step further by applying it to himself (Psalms 110:1; Matthew 22:41-45). Since the king of Psalms 110 was also a priest, Jesus was not only the messianic king but also the messianic priest (Psalms 110:4; Hebrews 5:6; Hebrews 7; see PRIEST, sub-heading ‘The high priesthood of Jesus’). This joint rule of the priest-king Messiah had been foreshadowed in the book of the prophet Zechariah (Zechariah 6:12-13). The Messiah was, in addition, to be a prophet, announcing God’s will to his people. As the Davidic kings in some way foreshadowed the king-messiah, so Israel’s prophets in some way foreshadowed the prophet-messiah. Again the ideal was fulfilled only in Jesus (Deuteronomy 18:15; Luke 24:19; John 6:14; John 7:40; Acts 3:22-23; Acts 7:37; Hebrews 1:1-2). Jesus and the Jews Although Jesus was the Messiah, he did not at the beginning of his ministry announce his messiahship openly. This was no doubt because the Jews of his time had a wrong understanding of the Messiah and his kingdom. The Jews had little interest in the spiritual work of the Messiah. They were not looking for a spiritual leader who would deliver people from the enemy Satan and bring them under the rule and authority of God. They looked rather for a political leader who would deliver them from the power of Rome and bring in a new and independent Israelite kingdom, where there would be peace, contentment and prosperity. If Jesus had announced himself publicly as the Messiah before showing what his messiahship involved, he would have attracted a following of the wrong kind (see KINGDOM OF GOD; MIRACLES). While not refusing the title ‘Messiah’, Jesus preferred to avoid it when speaking of himself. Instead he called himself the Son of man. This was a title that had little meaning to most people (they probably thought Jesus used it simply to mean ‘I’ or ‘me’), but it had a special meaning to those who understood the true nature of Jesus’ messiahship (see SON OF MAN). Just as Jesus opposed Satan who tempted him with the prospect of an earthly kingdom, so he opposed those who wanted him to be king because they thought he could bring them political and material benefits (John 6:15; John 6:26; cf. Matthew 4:8-10). When other Jews, by contrast, recognized Jesus as the Messiah in the true sense of the word, Jesus told them not to broadcast the fact. He was familiar with the popular messianic ideas, and he did not want people to misunderstand the nature of his mission (Matthew 9:27-30; Matthew 16:13-20). He did not place the same restrictions on non-Jews, for non-Jews were not likely to use his messiahship for political purposes (Mark 5:19; John 4:25-26). Later in his ministry, when he knew that his work was nearing completion and the time for his crucifixion was approaching, Jesus allowed people to speak openly of him as the Messiah (Matthew 21:14-16). He even entered Jerusalem as Israel’s Messiah-king and accepted people’s homage (1 Kings 19:16). But when he admitted before the high priest Caiaphas that he was the Messiah, adding a statement that placed him on equality with God, he was accused of blasphemy and condemned to death (Mark 14:61-64). When asked by the governor Pilate if he was a king, Jesus agreed that he was, though not the sort of king Pilate had in mind (Matthew 27:11; John 18:33-37; cf. Acts 17:7). The Messiah’s death and resurrection Even true believers of Jesus’ time still thought of the Messiah solely in relation to the establishment of God’s kingdom throughout the world at the end of the age. Because of this, many believers were puzzled when Jesus did not immediately set up a world-conquering kingdom (Matthew 11:2-3; Luke 24:21; Acts 1:6). Jesus pointed out that with his coming, God’s kingdom had come; the messianic age had begun. He was the Messiah, and his miracles of healing were proof of this (Isaiah 35:5-6; Isaiah 61:1; Matthew 11:4-5; Luke 4:18; Luke 18:35-43). What the disciples could not understand was that the Messiah should die. Like most Jews they knew of the Old Testament prophecies concerning God’s suffering servant (Isaiah 49:7; Isaiah 50:6; Isaiah 52:13-15; Isaiah 53; see SERVANT OF THE LORD), just as they knew of the prophecies concerning God’s Messiah, but they did not connect the two. Jesus showed that he was both the suffering servant and the Messiah. In fact, it was in response to his disciples’ confession of him as the Messiah that he told them he must die (Matthew 16:13-23; Matthew 17:12; Mark 10:45; Acts 4:27). Immediately after this, at the transfiguration, the Father confirmed that Jesus was both Davidic Messiah and suffering servant. He did this by an announcement that combined a statement from a messianic psalm with a statement from one of the servant songs of Isaiah (Matthew 17:5; Psalms 2:7; Isaiah 42:1; cf. also Matthew 3:17). The idea of a crucified Messiah was contrary to common Jewish beliefs. The Jews considered the Messiah as blessed by God above all others, whereas a crucified person was cursed by God (Galatians 3:13). That is why the Christians’ belief in a crucified Jesus as the Saviour-Messiah was a stumbling block to the Jews (see STUMBLING BLOCK). Jesus’ resurrection provided the solution to this apparent difficulty. Even the disciples did not understand when Jesus foretold his resurrection (Mark 8:29-33; Mark 9:31-32), but afterwards they looked back on the resurrection as God’s final great confirmation that Jesus was the Messiah (Luke 24:45-46; Acts 2:31-32; Acts 2:36). He was God’s anointed one (Acts 10:38; cf. Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:18). Title and name So firmly was the Messiah identified with Jesus after his resurrection, that the Greek word for Messiah (Christ) became a personal name for Jesus. The two names were often joined as Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus, and frequently the name ‘Christ’ was used without any direct reference to messiahship at all (Philippians 1:15-16; Philippians 1:18; Philippians 1:21). In general the Gospels and the early part of Acts use ‘Christ’ mainly as a title (‘Messiah’), and Paul’s letters use it mainly as a name. In the eyes of unbelieving Jews, Jesus was not the Messiah, and therefore they would not call him Jesus Christ. They called him Jesus of Nazareth, and his followers they called Nazarenes (Matthew 26:71; John 18:4-7; Acts 24:5). To unbelieving non-Jews, however, the Jewish notion of messiahship meant nothing. To them ‘Christ’ was merely the name of a person, and the followers of this person they called Christians (Acts 11:26). (See also JESUS CHRIST.)

Messiah (mes-si'ah). This is a Hebrew word signifying "anointed," and corresponding exactly to the Greek Christos. As in ancient times not only the king, but also the priest and the prophet, was consecrated to his calling by being anointed, the word "Messiah" often occurs in the Old Testament in its literal sense, signifying one who has been anointed, 1 Samuel 24:6; Lamentations 4:1-22 :' 20; Ezekiel 28:14; Psalms 105:15; hut generally it has a more specific application, signifying the One who was anointed, the supreme Deliverer who was promised from the beginning, Genesis 3:15, and about whom a long series of prophecies runs through the whole history of Israel from Abram, Genesis 12:3; Genesis 22:18; Jacob, Genesis 49:10; Balaam, Numbers 24:17; Moses, Deuteronomy 18:15; Deuteronomy 18:18; and Nathan, 2 Samuel 7:16; through the psalmists and prophets, Psalms 2:1-12; Psalms 16:1-11; Psalms 22:1-31; Psalms 40:1-17; Psalms 45:1-17; Psalms 110:1-7; Isaiah 7:10-16; Isaiah 9:1-7; Isaiah 11:1-16; Isaiah 13:1-22; Isaiah 53:1-12; Isaiah 61:1-11; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Micah 5:2; Malachi 3:1-4, to his immediate precursor, John the Baptist. The character of these prophecies is very definite. The lineage from which Messiah should descend was foretold, Genesis 49:10; Isaiah 11:1, the place in which he should be born, Micah 5:2, the time of his appearance, Daniel 9:20; Daniel 9:25; Haggai 2:7; Malachi 3:1, etc. Nevertheless, in the vanity of their hearts, the Jews mistook the true meaning of these prophecies. They expected a triumphant worldly king, according to Psalms 2:1-12; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Zechariah 9:9, and that his triumph was to be accomplished by sufferings and death they did not understand. See Jesus Christ.

MESSI'AH, a. Heb. anointed. Christ, the anointed the Savior of the world. I know that when Messiah cometh, who is called Christ, he will tell us all things. Jesus answered her, I that speak to thee am he. John 4 .

MESSIAH. The ‘one anointed’ (Gr. Christos ), i.e . appointed and empowered by God through the impartation of His own spirit, to become the Saviour of His people. The conception of the Messiah is logically implicit in all the expectations of the Hebrew people that Jehovah would deliver Israel and turn it into a glorious empire to which all the heathen would be subjected. But it is not always explicit. The expectation of the coming Kingdom is more in evidence than the expectation of the coming King. But in the same proportion as the conception of the personal Messiah emerges from the general Messianic hope these elements appear within it: (1) the Deliverer; (2) the presence of God’s Spirit in His own personality as the source of His power; (3) His work as the salvation of God’s people, at first the Jewish nation, but ultimately all those who join themselves to Him. 1. The Messiah of the OT In any historical study of the OT it is necessary to distinguish sharply between the Messianic interpretation given to certain passages by later writers, notably Christian and Rabbinic, and the expectation which, so far as it is recoverable, the writers of the OT actually possessed. A disregard of this distinction has been common from the point of view of theological statement, but is fatal to a proper understanding of that progress in the religious apprehension of God and the clarifying of religious expectations which constitutes so large a factor in the Biblical revelation of God. It is always easier to discover tendencies as one looks back over a historical course of events than as one looks forward into the future which these events determine. The proper method in the study of the Messianic hope is not to mass the sentences of the OT to which a Messianic interpretation is given by later Biblical or extra-Biblical writers, but to study them in their context both literary and historical. In such a tracing of the historical development it is necessary to recognize critical results as far as they are reasonably fixed, and thus avoid reading back into the original hopes of the Hebrews those interpretations and implications which were given to the early history by various redactors. These latter, however, constitute data for the understanding of the Messianic ideal in the age of the editors. Unfortunately, in the present state of criticism it is not possible to arrange the material of the OT in strictly chronological order. This is particularly true in the case of that reflecting the Messianic hope. The following classification of OT references is, therefore, not to he taken as a chronological exposition of a developing hope so much as a grouping of material of similar character. 1. The national tendencies of Messianic prophecy . In the case of prophets like Elijah and Elisha the hope is hardly more distinct than a belief that the nation which worshipped Jehovah would he triumphant over its enemies. So far as the records of their teaching show, however, there was no expectation of any superhuman deliverer, or, in fact, any future contemplated other than one which presupposed a conquering Israel with an equally triumphant Jehovah. Eschatological conceptions were absent, and the new Kingdom was to be political in the truest sense. With the approach of the more tragic days of the fall of the Northern Kingdom, the threatened calamities served as a text for the foreboding of Amos. Hosea’s prophecies of prosperity which would come to the nation when it turned from idols and alliances with heathen nations to the forgiving Jehovah may, as current criticism insists, belong to a later period than that usually accorded them; but in them we find little or nothing of the noble universalism to be seen in the promised victory of the seed of the woman over the serpent ( Genesis 3:14-15 ). It is rather a hope of national glory, such as appears in the promise made to Shem ( Genesis 9:27 ), to Abraham ( Genesis 12:8 ), to Jacob ( Genesis 27:27-29 ), and, in particular, to Judah ( Genesis 49:8-12 ). The basis of this great expectation is the faith in Jehovah as interpreted by the prophets, whether earlier or later. It was inconceivable to them that the true God should be other than ultimately triumphant; cf. the prophecy of Balaam ( Numbers 24:17-19 ), Song of Moses ( Deuteronomy 32:6-10 ), the expectation of ‘the prophet’ ( Deuteronomy 18:16-19 ). This nationalism is to be seen throughout the Messianic hope of the OT, although occasional exceptions are to be found, as in Genesis 3:14-15 , and in some passages of Ezekiel. 2. The Messianic hope of the great prophets . With Isaiah began a new development of the Messianic hope, primarily through the preaching of deliverance from the inevitable catastrophe of the Assyrian conquest. Out of the sorrows of the time, born largely, as Isaiah believed, from the sins of Jehovah’s people, was to arise deliverance. This seems to be the central teaching of the great passage, Isaiah 7:10-17 . Deliverance was to come before the expected child could choose between good and evil, but by the time he reached maturity the greater misery of Assyrian invasion should break forth. But in the name of the child, Immanuel , was the pledge that Jehovah would ever he with His people and would ultimately save them; not impossibly through the child himself, although nothing is said of Immanuel’s share in the accomplishment of the deliverance. Whether or not the reference in Isaiah 9:6-7 is to Immanuel, it is unquestionable that it is to the coming of a descendant of David, who should deliver Israel and reign with Jehovah’s assistance for ever triumphantly. In that glorious time, which was to he inaugurated by the Messianic King, would be prosperity hitherto unknown ( Isaiah 11:1-9 ). The ‘eternity’ of his reign is undoubtedly to he interpreted dynastically rather than personally, but the king himself clearly is a person, and Jehovah’s Spirit, which is to be within him, is just as plainly the source of his great success (cf. Isaiah 33:14-24 ). In a similar spirit Micah localizes the new Kingdom established through Divine guidance in Zion ( Micah 4:1-5 ), and declares that the King is to come from Bethlehem, that is to say, shall be Davidic ( Micah 5:2-5 ). Primarily national as these expectations are, the keynote is the deliverance wrought by Jehovah through a particular royal person, in whose days righteousness and peace are to he supreme in the world because of the Hebrew empire. This picture of the royal king became one controlling element in the later Messianic hope. In this literature, whatever its date may be, there appears also the new note of universal peace to be wrought by Jehovah. In large measure this peace was conceived of as due to the completeness of Jehovah’s conquest of the nations in the interests of His people (cf. Isaiah 9:1-5 ). But beyond this there can also be seen the hope that the very nature of the reign of the new King would conduce to an end of war. In such a passage as Isaiah 11:1-10 there is struck the keynote of a nobler Messianic reign than that possible to the mere conqueror. The peace then promised was to come from a knowledge of Jehovah as well as from the glories of the Davidic ruler. The reformation of Josiah finds an echo in the equally exultant expectation of Jeremiah that Jehovah would surely place a descendant of David upon the throne, a ‘righteous branch,’ and one who would deliver Israel (Jeremiah 33:14-16 ). The glory of the restored kingdom was to he enhanced by a New Covenant to replace the broken covenant of Sinai. This covenant would be spiritual, and the relations which it would establish between Israel and Jehovah would be profoundly religious. Israel would be a servant of Jehovah, who would, on His part, forgive His people’s sins ( Jeremiah 31:31-34 ; cf. Jeremiah 33:17-22 ). The restoration of Israel, which was thus to be accomplished by Jehovah, involved not only national honour, but also a new prosperity for the priesthood, and new immortality on the part of the individual and the nation. There is no reference, however, to a personal Messiah. Yet if such a passage as Deuteronomy 18:16-19 belongs to this period, it is evident that the hope included the expectation of some great person, who would he even more sublime than Moses himself. 3. The Messianic hope during the Exile . The great catastrophe which fell upon both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms forced the prophets to re-examine the relations of national misfortune to the persistent hope of the glorious Kingdom of Jehovah. It would seem as if at the outset the exiles had expected that they would soon return to Palestine, but this hope was opposed most vigorously by Ezekiel, and the fall of Jerusalem confirmed his teaching. From the despair that followed, the people were rescued by the appearance of Cyrus, who became the instrument of Jehovah in bringing about the return of the remnant to their own land. It was from these dark years that there appeared a new type of Messianic hope, national and economic, it is true, but also profoundly religious. Jehovah would care for His people as the shepherd cared for his sheep, and the land to which they would return would be renewed ( Ezekiel 34:11-31 ), while the nations would support Israel and fear Jehovah ( Isaiah 49:22-23 ). Jehovah would make an everlasting covenant with His people ( Isaiah 55:1-6 ), but the new nation would not he composed of all those who had been swept into exile and their descendants. It would rather be a righteous community, purified by suffering. Thus the hope rises to that recognition of the individual which Ezekiel was the first to emphasize strongly. At this point we have to decide whether the suffering Servant of Jehovah is to be interpreted collectively as the purified and vicarious remnant of Israel; or as some individual who would stand for ever as a representative of Jehovah, and, through his sufferings, purify and recall Israel to that spiritual life which would he the guarantee of a glorious future; or as the suffering nation itself. The interpretation placed upon these ‘Servant’ passages ( Isaiah 43:1-13 ; Isaiah 49:5 ; Isaiah 61:1-3 ; Isaiah 52:13-15 ; Isaiah 53:1-12 ) in Rabbinic thought was ordinarily not personal, but national. It was a suffering Israel who was not only to be gloriously redeemed, but was also to bring the knowledge of Jehovah and salvation to the world at large. And this is becoming the current interpretation to-day. Yet the personification is so complete as to yield itself readily to the personal application to Jesus made by the early Church and subsequent Christian expositors. A vicarious element, which was to prove of lasting influence, is now introduced into Messianic expectation. The deliverance was to be through the sufferings of the Deliverer. See, further, Servant of the Lord. 4. ‘ Messianic’ Psalms . While it is not possible to date Psalms 2:1-12 with any precision, its picture of the coming King who shall reign over all the world because of the power of Jehovah, is fundamentally political. The same is true of Psalms 45:1-17 ; Psalms 72:1-20 . In these Psalms there are expressions which could subsequently be used very properly to express the expectation of a completed Messianic hope, but it would be unwise to read back into them a conscious expectation of a definite superhuman person. The hope at the time of the writing of these Psalms was national and political. 5. The attempt at a Messianic nation . With the return of the exiles from Babylon to Judah attempts were made to inaugurate an ideal commonwealth which should embody these anticipations. The one great pre-requisite of this new nation was to be the observance of the Law, which would insure the coming of the Spirit of Jehovah upon the new Israel ( Joel 2:28-29 , Haggai 1:13 , Zechariah 2:1-5 , etc., Isaiah 60:1-22 ). The coronation of Zerubbabel seemed to Haggai and Zechariah the fulfilment of the promise that the prince would come from the house of David ( Haggai 2:23 , Zechariah 3:8 ). But the new commonwealth was thoroughly inefficient, and the Messianic hope seems to have become dormant in the struggles of the weak State. The literary activity of the years between the re-building of the Temple and the Maccabæan outbreak was, however, if current critical views be correct, full of idealistic elements. These expressed themselves in a re-working of the older codes and prophecies of the Hebrews, under the influence of the faith in the coming triumph Jehovah would give His people. The personal Deliverer is not described, but the deliverance was assured. This genuinely Messianic hope was not killed even by other tendencies to replace prophecy by the philosophy of experience. Through all these years it is certain that the fundamental elements of the Messianic hope remained fixed; namely, the ineradicable belief that Jehovah would ( a ) make of the Jewish nation a world empire; ( b ) establish the house of David; ( c ) punish the enemies of His chosen people, whether Gentiles or Jews; and ( d ) that this glorious future would be established by the expression of the Divine power in the resurrection, not of the individual from Sheol, but of the nation from its miseries. These elements were subsequently to develop into the dominant characteristics of the later Messianic hope the Kingdom of God, the Davidic King, the Day of Judgment, and the Resurrection of the Righteous. II. The Messiah of the Jewish literature 1. The rise of apocalypse . The attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes to crush out Judaism led to the appearance of a new type of religious literature the apocalypse. The origin of this literature is a matter of dispute. The influence of the Babylonian myth cycles is certainly apparent, but the apocalypses, as they stand, have no precise analogy in other literature of the period. For our present purpose, however, the importance of the apocalypse lies in the fact that it contributed to the development of a new Messianic conception. In the very nature of the case the misery of Syrian persecution forced ‘the Pious’ not only to renewed faith in Jehovah, but also to a new sense of the need of prophecy. In the absence of the genuine prophet, the triumph of Israel and the inevitable destruction of Jehovah’s foes were foretold by symbol. The pseudonymous literature, which thus arose in the course of time, however, came to be taken not simply as figures of speech, but as possessing an ill-defined literal character (see Apocalyptic Literature). 2. The Messiah of the later canonical books is not well defined. The apocalyptic sections of Daniel contain a pervasive Messianic element, and in the portrayal of this hope we find the first thoroughly elaborated apocalypse of Judaism. The international relations of Israel are traced, but the historical horizon is bounded by Antiochus Epiphanes. A most important element of the future as set forth by Daniel is to be seen in the triumph of the kingdom of the saints, whose symbol is a ‘son of man,’ over the oppressing kingdoms of Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Syria, symbolized by the four beasts. There is, however, no sharply distinct personal Messiah in these visions, and the expectation is primarily that of a genuinely political State established by Jehovah in Palestine. The ‘day of Jehovah’ (see Day of the Lord) is, however, now elaborately developed into a world-judgment, and the lines of future apocalyptic Messianism are clearly drawn. But it is now to some extent expanded by the belief that the righteous, both Hebrews and others, would be raised from the dead to join in the Kingdom ( Daniel 12:1 ff.). In this union of the idea of the resurrection of the nation with that of the individual we find material which was ready to grow into the pictures of the later apocalypse. 3. In the Sibylline Oracles the figure of the Messiah again is not distinct, but there is a picture (III. 652, 794) of a glorious time when under a Divinely supported king (doubtless a member of the Hasmonæan house) war was to cease and God was to bless the righteous and punish the wicked. The nations would then come under the law of Jehovah, and Jerusalem would be the capital of the world-wide empire to be established miraculously. The other literature of the inter-Biblical period is not so hopeful, although ben-Sira foresees an everlasting Jewish empire under a Davidic dynasty ( Sir 32:18-19 ; Sir 33:1 f., Sir 37:25 ; Sir 47:11 ; Sir 50:24 ). 4 . In the different strata of the Eth. Enoch literature the hope of a personal Messiah is presented in somewhat different degrees of distinctness. In the older sections (1 36) of the original groundwork (chs. 1 36, 72 104), the hope, though apocalyptic, is national. Here, however, as in the later literature, attention is centred rather on the punishment of the wicked than on the development of the new Kingdom. Very note worthy is the fact that both the punishment of the wicked and the rewards of the righteous were to be eschatological. But eschatology, though involving the resurrection, is still somewhat naïve. The righteous are to live 500 years, beget 1000 children, and die in peace (ch. 10). Still, the punishment of the wicked is to be in Sheol, which has been divided into four sections with varying conditions (ch. 22; see Sheol). It is obvious, however, that in this early Enoch literature the thought is poetic rather than precise, and in a way it marks the transition from the political religious hope of the prophets to the transcendental expectations of the later apocalypses. In the dream visions (chs. 83 90) there is a more elaborate symbolical account of the sufferings of the Hebrew people under various oppressors. The new age, however, is about to be introduced by the Day of Judgment, when wicked persons whether men, rulers, or angels are to be cast into an abyss of fire. Then the New Jerusalem is to be established by God. The dead are to be raised, the Messiah is to appear, and all men are to he transformed into His likeness. These latter elements of the hope, however, are somewhat obscurely expressed. The Messiah seems to have no particular function either of judgment or of conquest. The new Kingdom is a direct gift of God. In the later chapters of this early section (chs. 90 104) the thought becomes more eschatological. The resurrection comes at the end of the Messianic reign, which is to be one of struggle, in which the wicked are to be subdued. The Messiah is thus more distinct, and is at least once called by God ‘my Son.’ In the other group of Enoch visions (chs. 37 72) the transcendental has become to some extent literalized. The Messiah is now very prominent, being called ‘son of man,’ ‘elect,’ ‘righteous one.’ He is pre-existent, and co-judge with God over both the living and the dead. The punishment of the enemies of Israel is still as prominent as the establishment of the new Kingdom, and the latter is described in terms which make it evident that the Jews could not conceive of any Kingdom of God apart from Palestine. There men and angels are to dwell together and rule over a world freed from sin. 5. In the Book of Jubilees the Messianic hope is all but lacking. Angelology and demonology are well developed, but apparently the author of the visions conceived of the Messianic age as about to dawn, even if it had not already begun. Members of that age were to live 1000 years, and were to be free from the influence of Satan. The Judgment was to close this period, but there was to be no resurrection of the body. There is no reference to a Messiah, but rather to the conquest of the world by a nation that kept Jehovah’s law. 6. The best-drawn picture of the Messiah in the Pharisaic literature is that of the Psalms of Solomon . In the 17th and 18th of these the apocalyptic element is largely wanting, but there is nothing inconsistent with the view of apocalyptic Messianism. The Messiah, however, is given a position not accorded him elsewhere in pre-Christian Jewish literature. He is neither sufferer nor teacher, pre-existent nor miraculously born; he is a mighty king, vice-regent of God, strong through the Holy Spirit. He would conquer the world without weapons or armies, with the word of his mouth, i.e . miraculously. The capital would be at Jerusalem, which would be purged from all heathen, and his subjects would be righteous Jews, ‘sons of God.’ 7. The literature of later Pharisaism became very strongly apocalyptic, but the figure of a personal Messiah is not always present. In the Assumption of Moses there is no personal Messiah mentioned, and God is said to be the sole punisher of the Gentiles. The sufferings of the faithful are treated as an incentive to faith in the Kingdom of God. The concrete king of the hostile kingdom should be overcome. The enemies of God were to be punished in Gehenna, and a glorious dispensation for united Israel was to dawn. In Slavonic Enoch , likewise, there is no mention of the Messiah or of the resurrection, although the latter is doubtless involved in the doctrine of the millennium, which this book sets forth. It would appear that both in the Assumption of Moses and in Slavonic Enoch the central figure is God, the deliverer of His people and judge of His enemies, rather than the Messiah. In the Apocalypse of Baruch and in Second Esdras , however, transcendentalism reaches its final form under the influence of the tragedy of the fall of Jerusalem. These two books are very probably the different forms of cycles of apocalyptic hopes that prevailed among the pious Jews. In one cycle a Messiah would slay those who had in any way injured the Jewish people, and make a Jerusalem already prepared in heaven his capital. In the other cycle there is no such glory in store for Israel, but there will be an end of corruptible things, and the establishment of a new world-age in which the dead shall be raised under the command of the Messiah. In Second Esdras the Christ is conceived of as pre-existent, raised from the sea in company with Enoch, Moses, and Elijah; and is addressed by God as ‘my Son.’ He destroys the enemies of Israel without war, with fire that proceeds from his mouth. The ten tribes of Israel return with their brethren to live in the New Jerusalem which had come down from heaven. Then the Messiah and all mankind die, remaining dead for an entire ‘week’; after that come a general resurrection and judgment, and the fixing of the destinies of eternity. God, however, rather than the Messiah, is to be judge. In these later apocalypses the Christ plays a large rôle, but is manifestly to be subordinated to God. III. The Messiah of popular expectation in NT times . Over against this Messiah of Pharisaic literature, so clearly increasingly superhuman in character, must be placed the Messianic hope of the people at large. It is difficult to discover this in detail, for the reason that it found its way into literature only as a hope that had been rejected by the writers. Yet it is possible in some passages of Josephus to trace its rise and its tragic outcome. The Messianic spirit is undoubtedly to be seen in the succession of so-called ‘robbers’ that disturbed the reigns of Herod I. and his successors; as well as in the conspiracies under ‘the ten men’ ( Ant . XV. viii. 3, 4) and the Rabbis Judas and Matthias (Ant. XVII. vi. 2, 4). With the death of Herod, however, the Messianic movement among the masses gathered headway, particularly after the erection of Judæa into a procuratorial province (a.d. 6). Judas of Gamala and a Pharisee named Zaduc organized a fourth sect coordinate with the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, and incited the people to revolt, because of the census then established. There is no evidence, however, that this new sect, which is clearly that of the Zealots , had any distinct hope of a superhuman Messiah. According to Josephus ( Ant . XVIII. i. 1, 6), they said God was to be their only ruler and lord. To this new party Josephus attributes in large degree the fall of the Jewish State. Messianic movements are also to be seen in the attempted revolt of the prophet Theudas, in robbers like Eleazar, in the Sicarii (or Assassins), and in ‘the Egyptian,’ with whom St. Paul was momentarily identified by the chief captain ( Acts 21:33 ). Besides these were bands of fanatics like those mysterious men mentioned by Josephus ( BJ II. i. 2, 3). All these movements co-operated to bring about the destruction of the Jewish State, for the revolt of 66 must be regarded as distinctly Messianic a fact perceived by Josephus in the important passage BJ VI. v. 4, where it is said: ‘What most stirred them up to war was the ambiguous oracle that was found also in their sacred writings ^[1] that about that time one from their country should become ruler of the world.’ It is greatly to be regretted that this Messianic hope of the people has not left larger traces of itself. It is, however, not difficult to see in it the more political and concrete hopes which the Pharisees expressed in terms of the apocalypse. The Zealots, like the Pharisees, expected the new Kingdom to be established by God or His representative the Messiah, but, unlike the Pharisees, they were not content to await the Divine action. They preferred rather to precipitate deliverance by political revolt. The fact that the Messiah is not prominent in such hopes does not imply that such a person was unexpected. A leader would certainly be involved in any revolt, but such a leader would not necessarily be superhuman. Yet it would be unsafe to say that the Messiah whom the people expected, any more than he whom the Pharisees awaited, would be without Divine appointment and inspiration. He might not be, strictly speaking, supernatural, but he would certainly be given the Divine Spirit and power to bring deliverance which, without the aid of God, would be clearly impossible. The chief difference between the Messianic hope of the Pharisees and that of the Zealots and people was probably the lack in the latter of the eschatological, transcendental element, such as the resurrection from the dead and the heavenly Jerusalem, which was so important in the hope of the Pharisees. How thoroughly social and political this folk-Messianism became is to be seen in the various abortive attempts to establish, during the revolt of 66, a peasant republic, as well as in the destruction of evidence of indebtedness and the massacre of the aristocrats. The Pharisaic expectation would never have led to violence, but rather involved the patient waiting of the faithful for the time set by Jehovah. IV. The Messiah of the Samaritans . It would be exceedingly helpful, particularly for an understanding of John 4:1-42 , if we knew the Samaritan Messianic hope with some precision. Unfortunately, there is no literature dating from the time of Christ which sets this forth. So far, however, as it can be recovered from later sources, and particularly from the present high priest of the Samaritans, it would seem that the expectation did not include the Davidic King of Judaism, but centred rather about the prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:15 of the prophet God was to raise up like unto Moses. This prophet, according to the Samaritan belief, was to be ‘the Converter,’ who would bring moral and religious truth to light. At the same time, they believed that the Gentiles would be subjected to him, would believe in him and the holy Law, and in the sanctuary of Mt. Gerizim. There seems to have been no expectation of miraculous powers to be exercised by the prophet; but concerning this, as in fact about other particulars of the Samaritan hope, no statement can be made with absolute certainty. V. The Messiah of Rabbinism . Subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem, Pharisaism developed rapidly into its final stage of Rabbinism. The two tendencies which are so marked in Pharisaism one towards strict legalism, the other towards Messianicidealism were then codified and systematically elaborated. The development of the Messianic expectation, however, was to some extent shaped by the need of combating the Messianic interpretations of Christianity. Traces of this influence are undoubtedly to be found in the Targum on Isaiah 53 , and in 2 Esdras, but they are also to appear in literature that was clearly subjected to Christian redaction. The Messiah was generally regarded as a descendant of David. He was to free Israel from the power of the heathen world, kill its emperor of the kingdom of evil, and set up his own Kingdom. He was regarded also as pre-existent, not merely ideally, but actually. For a merely ideal pre-existence is not to be argued from the well-known saying including the seven things created before the world was made. The name here undoubtedly implies personality, and in some of the later Jewish writings this pre-existent state is somewhat minutely described. He is to be hidden until he appears, but the obvious inconsistencies of view were never fully systematized.